Regarding the possible existence of Aesthic Ideals.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 9:13 am
Regarding the possible existence of Aesthic Ideals.
Regarding attempts at describing such experiences, it would seem rational to submit that the logically required precursor to any investigation into the nature of a proposed aesthetic ideal should comprise an effort to provide an inclusive specification of those qualities characterising objects by virtue of which they have in practice been commonly judged to be a manifestation of the aesthetic ideal sought to be defined. That is, prior to attempting to answer a question such as for example, 'What is Art?' it should be a logically required precursor to any such argument to specify the observed phenomena that it is being attempted to describe, in the form of first providing an answer to the question, 'What is it, generically and exclusively, that is considered to be a manifestation in practice of this phenomenon, 'Art' that we are in turn trying to define?'
Some opine that an objective answer to the latter question is impossible on the basis of the claim that artistic evaluation is in principle a fundamentally subjective process. If this conclusion is accurate then I would submit — via the following (admittedly brief) argument — that such an assessment of the process of artistic evaluation invalidates the idea of Art (or beauty) as an objectively existing concept in itself, and renders it a concept logically meaningless and one inimical to being defined.
The argument is as follows: I would submit that to propose that an idea is logical is to imply that the idea necessarily possesses an objective existance, if only in the abstract. For example, if I conceive of an enclosed line including four internal right angles — i.e. a square — as being a line such that there exists a point from which any straight line directed to it is of equal length — ie. a circle — then I am conceiving of an illogical idea which therefore cannot possess an objective existence. From this I conclude both that the logical validity of a concept equates with its objective existence and also the concomitant: that if a concept possesses no abstract objective existence it is accordingly logically invalid. — So my conclusion (which I think is logicaly valid despite the ostensibly incongruous geometric analogy): A rejection in principle of the possibility of objective aesthetic evaluation must render the proposed aesthetic ideal with which it is concerned logically invalid and no more than a pscychological chimera.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Regarding the possible existence of Aesthic Ideals.
Aesthetic ideals that produce awe, beauty, sublimity, wonder, 'pleasure' and the likes should be represented by its machinery, processes and neural correlates within the mind of the experiencer. Therefore the focus should not be on the objects that trigger beauty, but rather on the elements of the machinery within the subject.
Because humans are generically the same at some basic level, we can thus objectify these aesthetic ideals via inter-subjectivity as a system of aesthetic.
The big question is what is the inherent purpose (btw not ontological) of such an aesthetic system within the mind of human individual(s). IMO, the inherent purpose of the aesthetic system is to motivate/nudge the striving of continuous improvement in all aspects of human life via the expression of 'art' [that even exists in Science] and 'fine arts'.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: February 4th, 2013, 9:13 am
Re: Regarding the possible existence of Aesthic Ideals.
My own take on the matter: If observers cannot in principle commonly agree on an exclusive specification of those phenomena which they consider as constituting a manifestation of a given aesthetic experience (or, for that matter, can't reach agreement on what observed phenomena constitute a manifestation of any given experience!) — let's say in this case the experience of 'Beauty' — and instead are in practice each individually reduced to citing a specified range of phenomena which they personally perceive to be a manifestation of the (in this case aesthetic) experience concerned but which others in turn find to be incompatible with the nature of their own individual (aesthetic) experience then — from the view point of a third-party observer — this must surely increase the suspicion that the root of the confusion is stemming from the fact that, at the heart of the dispute, there exists no objective phenomena at all - and therefore, in this respect, no objectively existing reality to be agreed upon!
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Regarding the possible existence of Aesthic Ideals.
all mathematical or arithmetical axioms are contingent upon the nature of the human conditions.
(note I am avoiding the loose term 'mind.')
They are 'constructed' and emerged from the sensibility elements of the human conditions.
I understand this perspective is controversial but that is my justifiable stance.
As such, there are no absolute objective ideals as in mathematics and arithmetic in the sense of existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Whilst there are no absolute objective ideals, humans has somehow derived a sense of objectivity of these axioms on the basis of inter-subjectivity for various purposes to facilitate survival.
Surely most* humans can agree 1 +1 = 2 as objective but it's ultimate grounding is inter-subjective.
*some primitive tribes do not have such concepts.
It is the same for the inter-subjective 'beauty' and other aesthetic ideals, they will be objective by consensus if they have sufficient common utilities. In the case of beauty and other aesthetic ideals, it is not directed at the objects but rather at the process that is considered objective.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Regarding the possible existence of Aesthic Ideals.
So you are arguing that unless an evaluation is grounded in hard analytic reasoning then it is just chimera??? Trouble ahead:The argument is as follows: I would submit that to propose that an idea is logical is to imply that the idea necessarily possesses an objective existance, if only in the abstract. For example, if I conceive of an enclosed line including four internal right angles — i.e. a square — as being a line such that there exists a point from which any straight line directed to it is of equal length — ie. a circle — then I am conceiving of an illogical idea which therefore cannot possess an objective existence. From this I conclude both that the logical validity of a concept equates with its objective existence and also the concomitant: that if a concept possesses no abstract objective existence it is accordingly logically invalid. — So my conclusion (which I think is logicaly valid despite the ostensibly incongruous geometric analogy): A rejection in principle of the possibility of objective aesthetic evaluation must render the proposed aesthetic ideal with which it is concerned logically invalid and no more than a pscychological chimera.
1. you would have to then argue that every tried and true method out there that does not have your standard duly observed should be disregarded. My boat gets me out to sea, and I know this, though there is not that objective rigor of the kind you mention. Sure, we all know how boats work and there is a very strong case for re;ying on them to get out to sea. This is the empirical world and our assumptions about the way it works are all based in probability. Who knows, they could all sink tomorrow. Like Sartre said, the world is radially contingent,could do anything and it is not rule bound. Certainly it is not bound by logic! So we should all moor our boats, park our cars, and so forth: all chimera.
2. Of course, it is logical to assume things will go well with our boats and the rest oin the future, though there is no apodictic certainty here. Let's say there is objective evidence for assuming the boat will float. What then of aesthetics? Take the boat: every time I get in I implicitly acknowledge that if a boat, barring leaks and the like, is set in water it will float. This boat is in water; therefore, it will float. It is a personal maxim of mine to depend on boats floating, though it may be share by others who have similar experiences with boats (i.e., most people). Some may not agree, having lived on a planet with no water since birth. But you could easily convince such a person. Now aesthetics: if i could play Beethoven for you, you may not like it. But assuming that we share the same hard wiring (as is required for boats!) I could, as long as you are willing to understand, convince you of the value of Beethoven: melody, rhythm, tonality; all very intuitive (though time to acquire is necessary. You could make the same argument for analytic thinking) It is of course possible that you have an impossibly tin ear and never get it. Then you would be like those who live on that far away planet who never saw water and do not believe boats float: the conditions for the knowing are simply not available.
3. Even analytic objectivity is questionable! Is it not true that it is not necessarily true that anaytic truth 'X' is not true? No? What is the basis for this? Can't do it because to do so would make you rely on the very intuition that is brought into question, and that is question begging.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023